The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[regwec]

I think anyone who relies on scripture to argue the validity of scripture isn't really worth debating with. The logical brick wall is there from the start.

 

[Feenix]

I think anyone who relies on scripture to argue the validity of scripture isn't really worth debating with. The logical brick wall is there from the start.

True. And we have one thing on our side that evolution deniers will never have: evidence.

The only endpoint of a debate between evolutionists and creationists is that creationists will hold on to their beliefs with even more fervour.

 

[The End]

See I don't think that's true. Evidently, some creationists change their mind and abandon that way of thinking.

Although, in saying that, I've never personally convinced a creationist that they were wrong. No matter how much I explained human chromosome 2 and occam's razor (which is the nail in the coffin, as far as the evidence and the logic for common ancestry with apes goes).

 

[Marvolo]

See I don't think that's true. Evidently, some creationists change their mind and abandon that way of thinking.

Although, in saying that, I've never personally convinced a creationist that they were wrong. No matter how much I explained human chromosome 2 and occam's razor (which is the nail in the coffin, as far as the evidence and the logic for common ancestry with apes goes).

To get a creationist and a lifetime christian, who has been raised from birth to believe the bible word for word, to accept evolution is no easy feat. That is for sure. Despite the overwhelming evidence that evolution is fact, you are asking a person to give up fundamental beliefs and essentially rewire their brain.

I know we pick on creationists and give them a hard time, but really we shouldn't. The ones who have been indoctrinated arent at fault. They have been taught to fear and love god and his word. Its ingrained from a very young age and is like a reflex in the brain. It takes a lot of time and work to overcome something like that. More time than we have in a single conversation. There are therapists that actually deal with this, because it can take months, even years, for an indoctrinated person to overcome the indoctrination. Its like overcoming brainwashing. You cant just bop em on the head or shove facts in their face and expect them to say "Ok I was wrong." The brain just doesnt work like that after years of indoctrination.

 

[jaymes_e06]

^Do you guys think all Christians don't believe in evolution because that would be a fallacy?

 

[Feenix]

^Do you guys think all Christians don't believe in evolution because that would be a fallacy?

It's other Christians that tell evolution believing Christians that they're not real Christians.

I don't thnk Marvolo has any issue with Christians who believe in evolution. The abuse comes from their own brethren.

 

[Marvolo]

^Do you guys think all Christians don't believe in evolution because that would be a fallacy?

What Cosmic said. I dont have any prpblem with Christians who believe in evolution, and I know there are many. I dont have a problem with indoctrinated christians who believe creationism either. Its not their fault their parents brainwashed them like their parents brainwashed them and on and on back through time. It does us no good to hate these people or be mean or aggressive. We just have to keep working to end the indpctrination and help those who are indoctrinated so much that they fear and hide from facts. Their is no quick fix for this. Its gonna take a lot of time.

 

[Thundercrack85]

While there are certainly those whose minds can be changed, there are some, who are just too far gone.

 

[redhawk23]

If there is a problem to be had with Christians who accept the theory of evolution, it is that they often still reject or least are hesitant to apply the methods and principles that led to its development in the first place.

 

[Dr.]

While there are certainly those whose minds can be changed, there are some, who are just too far gone.

In a poll a few years ago, a good percentage of creationists admitted that the persuasive nature of the science was irrelevant. Even with hypothetically perfect evidence, they’d still reject evolution in favor of what their faith demands. That’s discouraging. Moreover, it means that making the effort to present facts and engage in instructional debate is a waste of time.

That said, many creationists school themselves in the “science” of so-called “creation science.” E.g., if they’re troubled by radiometric dating techniques (which establish the Earth as over 4 billion years old) they read up on the pseudo flaws and criticisms of radiometric dating in order to have ammunition for their next encounter with a know-it-all evolutionist. So at some level, some creationists respect science - in that they try to use science to support the Genesis account. This might mean that these folks are reachable.

In the heat of impassioned debate, it’s extremely rare for one side to suddenly declare - in real time - that they were wrong. It’s human nature to double down and defiantly defend one’s position. But after the fact, compelling evidence and arguments gnaw at you and you change your mind. It may take time; but it does, occasionally, happen.

 

[squeekness]

What Cosmic said. I dont have any prpblem with Christians who believe in evolution, and I know there are many. I dont have a problem with indoctrinated christians who believe creationism either.

This would be me. Clearly the science is too overwhelming to ignore. I see no problem with idea of evolution as all part of God's plan. For me the Big Bang was an act of God all those trillion billion years ago. Maybe because I converted so late in life, this is not a problem for me. I see science as the language of God, that it reveals him.

 

[Doctor Evo]

This would be me. Clearly the science is too overwhelming to ignore. I see no problem with idea of evolution as all part of God's plan. For me the Big Bang was an act of God all those trillion billion years ago. Maybe because I converted so late in life, this is not a problem for me. I see science as the language of God, that it reveals him.

Whoa there, calm down.

 

[regwec]

Do you consider yourself to be a "bible-believing" Christian, in the sense understood by some previous Christian visitors to this thread?

I ask because I can understand how someone might try to reconcile belief in an abstract creator-being with the physical laws of the universe; I don't really understand how much of the content of the bible can be so reconciled.

 

[squeekness]

Whoa there, calm down.

I don't how many it is so I took a guess.

Do you consider yourself to be a "bible-believing" Christian, in the sense understood by some previous Christian visitors to this thread?

I ask because I can understand how someone might try to reconcile belief in an abstract creator-being with the physical laws of the universe; I don't really understand how much of the content of the bible can be so reconciled.

I am not a Biblical literalist if that is what you mean. I think the Bible is us and Him trying to work it all out. There is much about God that we don't know and may never know. I think the Bible is to a certain degree dated because of how long ago it was written, when it comes to the scientific stuff. The earth revolves around the sun and not the sun around us and all that. I don't see why it is so difficult to adjust to scientific knowledge when we learn new things. I don't see it as carved in stone. I know folks jump all over me because of it, but it is important that it be said that not all Christians think alike when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Feenix]

I've witnessed other Christians with your sane and rational approach to the Bible and science. It's nice to see. It brings hope that we can all co-exist peacefully.

Buuuuuut, then the ultra conservative Christians come out of the woodwork and verbally abuse those with your views and call them un-Christian and pretty much tell them they're going to hell.

 

[regwec]

I am not a Biblical literalist if that is what you mean. I think the Bible is us and Him trying to work it all out. There is much about God that we don't know and may never know. I think the Bible is to a certain degree dated because of how long ago it was written, when it comes to the scientific stuff. The earth revolves around the sun and not the sun around us and all that. I don't see why it is so difficult to adjust to scientific knowledge when we learn new things. I don't see it as carved in stone. I know folks jump all over me because of it, but it is important that it be said that not all Christians think alike when it comes to this stuff.

Interesting, thanks. It's heartening to see someone who is able to identify the fact that the effusion of time may have led to some parts of the book being less useful or meaningful than they once might have been.

May I ask whether you consider the various miracles described in the text to be factual, or metaphorical, or otherwise "literary"?

 

[KevanG]

I don't how many it is so I took a guess.

It was CLEARLY a bazillion years ago. Oh woe to you crazy religious nuts.

 

[SV Fan]

^Do you guys think all Christians don't believe in evolution because that would be a fallacy?

Not all but.....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...fossil-creation-controversy-180950474/?no-ist

When Evolution's Controversial, Declaring a State Fossil Can Get Tricky
The Columbian Mammoth gets caught in the crossfire of the culture wars

The Columbian Mammoth is about to become an official state symbol of South Carolina, but its path to the limelight was long and fraught with controversy. Let’s see if you can guess why. Here's the text of the bill that made it official:

Section 1-1-712A. The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field.

This is actually the watered-down version of the bill; one version, proposed earlier, made even more explicit references to the role of a divine creator in the mammoth's history.

This all started when an 8-year-old suggested that the Columbian mammoth become South Carolina’s state fossil. Olivia McConnell had some good reasoning behind her suggestion: Mammoth teeth found in a South Carolina swamp in 1725 were the first vertebrate fossils identified in North America.

Her submission became a bill. The original draft was simple enough: “Section 1-1-691. The Wooly Mammoth is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina.” But almost immediately the proposal ran into trouble. On a practical level: Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler objected strenuously to having any new state symbols enacted in a state that already has a state spider, state beverage and a state hospitality beverage among many others. On a philosophical level: proclaiming a state fossil in a state where there is still intense debate over teaching evolution as fact creates some problems.

From USA Today:

State Sen. Mike Fair, a Greenville Republican who serves on the panel that will decide the science standards, said that natural selection should be taught as theory rather than as scientific fact. He argues that natural selection can make biological changes within species but it can't explain the whole progression from microbes to humans.

"This whole subject should be taught as a pro and con," he said.

Last week, Fair had raised his own objection that temporarily killed Olivia's bill but withdrew it after another senator told him the story of the Lake City girl's campaign to get an official state fossil.

Fair wasn’t the only one who had objections. Another State Senator, Kevin Bryant started a pushing a change that would add some biblical flair to the otherwise direct language. The New York Times:

But then Senator Kevin Bryant proposed an amendment rooted in the Book of Genesis, imputing God as the creator of the woolly mammoth: “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

Bryant’s version was struck down, but the final version of the bill did include that language about the Mammoth being created on the sixth day.

There was one other addition, too. Frustrated by the amount of time spent discussing state symbols instead of governing, legislators also added an amendment to the bill prohibiting the General Assembly from enacting any new state symbols “until such time as the General Assembly directly by legislative enactment removes this moratorium.”

​

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd say something about the first amendment, but with South Carolina, even I can't be bothered. To quote, South Carolina's own native son, James Petigru, "South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum."

 

[jaymes_e06]

What Cosmic said. I dont have any prpblem with Christians who believe in evolution, and I know there are many. I dont have a problem with indoctrinated Christians who believe creationism either. Its not their fault their parents brainwashed them like their parents brainwashed them and on and on back through time. It does us no good to hate these people or be mean or aggressive. We just have to keep working to end the indpctrination and help those who are indoctrinated so much that they fear and hide from facts. Their is no quick fix for this. Its gonna take a lot of time.

If this is the way you address their beliefs then no wonder you haven't converted anyone to your frame of thinking. That being said I agree that there are just as many false Christians condemning people while still trying to play the "faithful and true Christian" card though that in itself is a sin. I don't think that life has any simple "answers" on either side honestly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well to be fair, I doubt Marvolo calls them brainwashed to their face.

I try to politely remind them that they only believe what they believe because they were born into it, and had they been born in say, Indonesia, they would be faithful Muslims. I've actually gotten a number to concede that point.

 

[rodhulk]

I would suggest to people here not to chase someone away from the thread just 'cause they're posting scripture.

Use it as an opportunity to engage in discussion.

rodhulk brought up the issue of truth. What IS truth anyway? How do we determine what is true or likely to be true?

The dude that runs Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham, had that debate with Bill Nye. Watch that debate, rodhulk, and judge for yourself how well Ham holds up.

The difference between Nye and Ham is summed up nicely here.

I think there was kind of a missed opportunity here in this thread to engage with rodhulk.

I was willing and gave my reason why I decided not too. Being told that I was bias or just sticking with my faith and refusing to change when my own testimony was rejected by you guys here when in my testimony, I mentioned I did change my previous Christian stance and accepted evolution but only to an extent. That's all I could conclude. Yet still you guys here seem to deny that I was honest. Even some of the recent posts here, you guys seem to suggest this and not just about me but others, too. So, why should Christians speak/debate with you on this evolution topic when we're immediately placed under judgement? So with that, if you can't accept me in my testimony, then why would you accept me in anything else I have to say? With Doctor Evo, I tried with him too, but he turned it sour and now makes it like I'm the bad guy. Doctor Evo is a nice guy, it may have been an interesting conversation but do to the reason of ignoring one of my posts and then in a more recent post, he gave me the impression that he is full, I'm not here for the full people but the people who are hungry.

I haven't seen this video yet but I would gladly give you a link to a video of a debate between a Christian/creationists and leading evolutionist here if you want.

What is truth? I suppose truth would be something that would be a fact (such as something that actually exists). Anything else may be considered evidence that can point the way to "truth." I've seen probable facts and definite evidence that suggests the God of the Bible which leads me to believe that is the truth.

 

[rodhulk]

For those who are open and seeking the truth, the Bible does hold up to the tests that are brought to it. After a few words to begin, I've copied and pasted a post that shows a lot of evidence that I believe leads to the truth.

You can know that (perhaps from Romans 1:20, that what has been clearly made gives man no excuse to not believe):

God did indeed spread out the heavens as per Isaiah 40:22. You can see that the big bang may actually be an act of God.

God created things so they can reproduce "after their kinds" as per Genesis 1:24. I believe this refers to the variation within natural kinds, roughly what biologists refer to families, and that this has happened, allowing for great diversification since the flood and ark. I believe this is the limit to what we see in evolution and so the common ancestor does not exist. Evolutionists will disagree that this is the limit to what evolution brings forth, but check the links further on down or simply google it and check some creationists answers to the question since you'll probably get enough evolutionists giving their details to back up their position.

Psalm 104:6-9 tells us through various translations that "mountains rose".... and that the flood waters would never flood the earth again, hence why we know that there is not enough water to flood over everything - which adds a little extra food for thought on God's amazing revelations in the Bible. How would the writer have known this back then, that there isn't enough water to flood over the whole earth, if it wasn't for God?). And this "mountains rose" is exactly what is taught by scientists/evolutionists to answer why some sea life fossils are found on mountain tops. Of course the timeline would probably be vastly different between the Bible's account and evolution's account, but the Bible has got this teaching correct.

The Bible is full of amazing evidence that it's words are true and I hope you can see the beauty of it. If you're searching for the truth, I believe the Bible teaches it. Amen. The copied/pasted link is below:



For the seeker of truth:

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Psalm 14:1: "The fool says in his heart, "there is no God.""

Psalm 10:4 "In his pride the wicked man does not seek him in all his thoughts, there is no room for God."

As has been presented over the last couple of pages in this thread, one can see these scriptures "come to life" quite clearly by many in this thread. God has revealed things that show that his divine qualities are seen, but you need to look openly (and if you are an evolutionist, get out of the evolution box) and look at the world around you.

Israel is a skeptics worst nightmare. The fulfilled prophecies with that nation cannot be overlooked. If one overlooks Israel, then I would think that especially Romans 1:20 and Psalm 10:4 rings true for them. Israel is for real and she is of God.

http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/Ar...sFulfilled.htm

http://therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm


You can also see that events taking place in the world are as per scripture said they would be.

http://www.raptureforums.com/BiblePr...01lastdays.cfm


Many of these people here who I have debated with will deny the scriptures, that they are full of contradictions. But God is good and does answer many of these supposed contradictions.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting..."

http://thedevineevidence.com/skeptic...adictions.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...cripture-index

(This one has to do with creation-evolution) http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-...tering-critics


There are some good creation websites you can visit to learn more about why the creation model of how life came to be does indeed stand up with evolution. Remember, evolution is not the only door that answers the question on how we are here today. Since everybody is responsible for themselves, I invite you to check these out and be open to the truth the Bible presents. And be open to God who does give us reasons to believe in him. I ask you to taste the goodness of God, and he will lead down the correct path. The correct path is found in Jesus. Jesus saves!

http://www.icr.org/

www.answersingenesis.com

 

[Calvin]

Sorry if this has been posted in the last page or two already, didn't catch it in my initial perusal, but is there an easy link to that Nye/Ham debate? Would love to watch that.

You can know that:

God did indeed spread out the heavens as per Isaiah 40:22. You can see that the big band may actually be an act of God.[/URL]

Sorry, just had to point out how silly this assertion is. So you can "know" something by looking at how something "may actually be" something based on a loose (and I use the word "loose" loosely) correlation without a single direct bit of evidence linking the two together. You're basically saying "if you squint really hard it kind of looks like this.... PROOF!"

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's not on youtube anymore?